[WikiEN-l] "should not be written by an interested party"

Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist at googlemail.com
Mon May 1 17:03:19 UTC 2006

IMO, taking the interested party has a NPOV, it's fine.

For example, a member of the Democrat Party is an interested part in the
Democratic Party article, should they be able to edit it? Same goes for the
NGS and Wikipedia.

On 5/1/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/04/06, Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > If didn't get this wrong, until now even interested parties
> > are welcome, as long as they aim for NPOV -- with the notable
> > exception of the autobiography clause.
> >
> > And where does "interested party" start?
> >
> > There are even topics so obscure ([[New Kadampa Tradition]] comes
> > to my mind), that only vocal opponents and vocal proponents
> > contribute. Should they already be considered "interested
> > parties"? Shall we hope, that they will battle it out so that the
> > result is NPOV?
> A vocal opponent is not an interested party. An interested party is a
> party with, well, an interest in the matter, like a shareholder,
> employee etc. For Wikipedia purposes, you can pretty much consider
> interested party to mean the party itself.
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Joe Anderson

[[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list